- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 21:18:06 +0000
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
± From: Sylvain Galineau [mailto:sylvaing@microsoft.com] ± Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 11:28 AM ± ± [Tab Atkins Jr.:] ± > ± > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Sylvain Galineau ± > <sylvaing@microsoft.com> ± > wrote: ± > > Usability question: is it potentially odd or confusing for the ± > > negative flex ratio to be a positive integer and to make negative ± > > values invalid? [1] ± > > ± > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-flexbox/#flex-shrink-property ± > ± > No clue. I haven't been confused by it so far, but that's not a ± > strong indicator. ± > ± ± It doesn't bother me unduly either but on reading the prose I just ± found it odd to be told a negative ratio must be a positive integer. ± And given the encouragement to use the shorthand I wondered if making ± flex-shrink a negative could help make the value more readable by ± clarifying which flex value does what. It would make "flex:1 -1 100px" look cool and we certainly can do that. It would however create the first ever precedent of a property taking negative values only. And its meaning is not really "negative", it is ability to shrink... Maybe we should just use a different word in the spec?
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 21:19:38 UTC